Archbishop
archbishop
(Greek: archos, chief; episkopos, bishop)
The bishop of an archdiocese who presides over one or more dioceses , forming an ecclesiastical province. He is also styled metropolitan , because his see is usually the most important city of the province. Today an archbishop usually cannot interfere with the affairs of a diocese other than his own, but he has the right and duty to call the bishops to a provincial council, and also to act as first judge of appeal from a decision of one of his suffragan bishops. In the Eastern Church archbishops as a rule are merely titular.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Archbishop
(Archiepiskopos, archiepiscopus).
I. IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
An archbishop or metropolitan, in the present sense of the term, is a bishop who governs a diocese strictly his own, while he presides at the same time over the bishops of a well-defined district composed of simple dioceses but not of provinces. Hence none of these subordinate bishops rule over others. These bishops are called the suffragans or comprovincials. The archbishop’s own diocese is the archdiocese. The several dioceses of the district form the archiepiscopal, or metropolitan, province.
Historical Origin
Some writers wrongly point to Sts. Timothy and Titus, the disciples of St. Paul, as to the first archbishops in the Church. Probably they were metropolitans in the wider sense of the term, one for Asia Minor, the other for the island of Crete. But it remains impossible to assign the exact date when archbishops, as we now use the term, were first appointed. It is true that metropolitans are mentioned as a well-known institution in the Church by the Council of Nicæa (325) in its fourth, fifth and sixth canons, and by the Council of Antioch (341) whose seventh canon is a classical passage in this matter. It reads: “The bishops of every province must be aware that the bishop presiding in the metropolis has charge of the whole province; because all who have business come together from all quarters to the metropolis. For this reason it is decided that he should, according to the ancient and recognized canon of our fathers, do nothing beyond what concerns their respective dioceses and the districts belonging thereto”, etc. But it cannot be denied that even at, this period the term “metropolitan” was used indiscriminately for all higher ranks above the simple episcopate. It was thus applied also to patriarchs and primates. The same must be said of the term “archbishop” which does not occur in the present meaning before the sixth century, although the office of archbishop or metropolitan in the stricter sense, indicating a hierarchical rank above the ordinary bishops but below the primate and patriarch, was already substantially the same in the fifth century as it is today. A peculiar condition obtained in Africa, where the archiepiscopal office was not attached to a certain see, the metropolis, but where it always devolved upon the senior bishop of the province, whatever see he might occupy. He was called “the first or chief bishop”, or also “the bishop of the first or chief see”.
Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the archbishop is twofold, episcopal and archiepiscopal. The first extends to his own diocese exclusively and comprises the rights and powers of the fullest government of the diocese, clergy and laity, spiritual and temporal, except as restricted by Church law. Unless such restriction be clearly stated in law, the presumption is in favour of the episcopal authority. The contrary holds in regard to the archiepiscopal authority. It extends to the province and the suffragan bishops only in as far as it is explicitly stated in the law. Where the law is silent, the presumption is against the archbishop. Be it remembered, however, that rightfully established and approved custom obtains the force of law. Archiepiscopal jurisdiction, being permanently attached to the office as such, is ordinary jurisdiction, not merely delegated or vicarious. It reaches immediately the suffragan bishops, and mediately the faithful of their dioceses. However, it has not always been the same either in regard to time or place. While the metropolitan office was everywhere the same in character, the extent and measure of its right and power would be greatly modified by local conditions, particular laws and customs, and sometimes by papal privileges. Although many of these rights are mentioned in different places of the Corpus Juris Canonici, yet there never was a uniform law to define them all in detail. In former times the archbishop’s jurisdiction was far more ample than it is at present. The metropolitan could confirm, consecrate, and transfer the bishops of his province, accept from them the oath of allegiance and fidelity, summon them singly or collectively to his metropolis (even outside of a council) at his pleasure, cite the suffragans into his court in civil and criminal trials, give them leave of absence from their dioceses and letters commendatory in their travels, allow them to dispose of church property, regulate the Church calendar of the province by fixing and announcing the date of Easter, administer the suffragan dioceses in case of vacancy, and, finally, receive appeals lodged with him from any part of his province. But this extensive power of archbishops was later on greatly restricted, specially in the Latin Church, by several of the popes, and lastly by the Council of Trent. The charge made by the Jansenists that the popes curtailed the rights of archbishops in order to increase and strengthen their own claim of universal primacy, is best refuted by the fact that the metropolitan authority in it struggles against encroaching primates and patriarchs or rival metropolitans, found no stronger support than that given by the Holy See. On the other hand, Rome had also to defend the native or acquired rights and privileges of suffragan bishops against usurping claims of their metropolitans. That the Holy See did not exceed its powers is further proved by the fact the Council of Trent restricted rights of metropolitans even more than the popes had done. In the Catholic Churches of Asia and Africa the former metropolitan office is today merged in the patriarchal office. The archbishops under those patriarchs have no province nor archiepiscopal jurisdiction, but only hold the rank or archiepiscopal dignity. But in Austria, Hungary, Roumania, Servia, and Herzegovina the Catholics of the different Oriental rites, Ruthenians, Greeks, and Armenians, still have archbishops in the proper sense, who retain a large portion of their former jurisdiction, more than those of the Latin Rite. Since the Council of Trent the rights of an archbishop in the Latin Church may be described as follows:
(1) In regard to his suffragan bishops the metropolitan may compel them to assemble in provincial council every three years, and to attend faithfully to their episcopal duties, in particular those of residing regularly within their own diocese, of holding diocesan synods, and of maintaining diocesan seminaries (where clerical candidates cannot otherwise receive an ecclesiastical training). In the provincial council the archbishop is invested with all the rights of the presiding officer, but his voice counts no more than any of his suffragans. Modern practice has it also that when the archbishop’s warning is not heeded by the delinquent suffragan, he will not himself use compulsory measures, e.g. censures, but report the case to Rome. Only civil, not criminal, cases of suffragans come within the competency of the archbishop.
(2) Generally speaking, the metropolitan has no direct jurisdiction over the subjects of his suffragans. But he acquires such jurisdiction in three ways, namely: by appeal, by devolution, and by the canonical visitation. Today archbishops cannot visit a suffragan diocese, unless the matter has been discussed and approved by the provincial council. Matters of episcopal jurisdiction will devolve upon the archbishop in certain cases mentioned in the law, when the suffragan bishop neglects to do his duty, e.g. to fill in due time vacant benefices or parishes, or to absolve from excommunication when the necessary conditions have been complied with. This proceeds on the general principle that superiors ought to remedy the neglect of their inferiors lest too great harm be done to the Church and her faithful children. When a diocese becomes vacant the cathedral chapter is bound to elect a vicar-capitular who will act as administrator of the vacant diocese. If such election is not made in eight days the archbishop of the province will appoint the vicar-capitular. In the United States the archbishop appoints an administrator of the vacant diocese until Rome shall further provide. If the archdiocese becomes vacant, the senior suffragan appoints the administrator. An appeal or recourse, judicial or extrajudicial, lies directly, at least in the regular course of ecclesiastical procedure, from the bishop to his archbishop, as to the next higher instance. Whenever some disputed matter is thus brought, according to the law, from a suffragan diocese before the metropolitan for adjudication, he acquires direct jurisdiction over the case. Appeals and recourses by the archbishop’s own subjects against his judicial sentences, or other ordinances given in the first instance, lie directly, when allowed by law, to the Holy See, at least in the absence of a proper primate or patriarch. But, to expedite and facilitate matters, other ways are usually granted by Rome, e.g. to appeal from the archbishop to his senior suffragan, as in England; or to the nearest other metropolitan, as in the United States and in Germany; or to a second and special metropolitic court in the same province called Metropoliticum as in France. Since the establishment of the Apostolic Delegation in the United States, cases from the suffragan sees (except matrimonial cases) are usually brought directly before the delegate and no longer before the archbishop.
(3) Archbishops also have the right and duty of compelling, if necessary, the superiors of religious orders, even those who are otherwise exempt, in charge of parishes or congregations, to have the Gospel preached in such parishes according to the provisions of the Council of Trent. It may be observed, however that, although such are by law the rights of an archbishop, their exercise is now seldom called for, so that his more prominent position is rather one of honour and dignity than of actual jurisdiction. Still, with all this, it remains necessary to distinguish the incumbent of a metropolitan see from the bearer of a mere honorary title of archbishop (who never receives the pallium and is never called metropolitan), often granted by the Holy See to prelates without an actual see and sometimes to ordinary bishops. By the Mohammedan conquest nearly all of the early metropolitan sees in Asia and Africa became extinct. In more recent time some of these were restored by the popes, being made residential sees. But the titles of the others are conferred as a mere honorary distinction, mostly upon prelates of the Roman courts and coadjutor bishops of metropolitans. Besides the powers of jurisdiction, archbishops also enjoy certain rights of honour within their province. The foremost among these is the right of wearing the pallium. Before receiving the pallium from Rome the archbishop cannot exercise any metropolitic functions nor officiate in pontifical vestments within the province, unless by a special privilege from the Holy See. Other honorary rights are: to have the processional cross carried immediately before him, to wear the mozetta or short cape, to bless the people, to precede his suffragans, and to occupy the bishop’s throne, all this anywhere in the province. In the archiepiscopal coat of arms the episcopal hat is flanked by ten tassels on each side. His address is “Your (His) Grace”, “Most Reverend”.
Manner of Appointment
The vacancy of an archiepiscopal see is filled in the same manner as that of an ordinary bishopric, whether it be by an election properly so called, or by a presentation or nomination, or by direct papal appointment. If the new archbishop be a priest, he will receive episcopal consecration; if already a bishop, he will be solemnly installed in the new office. But it is neither the consecration nor the installation which makes the archbishop. It is his appointment to an archdiocese.
Statistics
There are at present (1906) in the Catholic Church 164 archbishops with provinces, and 37 with only their diocese but no province, and, lastly, 89 purely titular archbishops. In the United States there are now 14 provinces, in British America 9, in Cuba 1, in the Philippine Islands 1. For a full description of the present metropolitan organization in the Catholic Church, East and West, see the article HIERARCHY.
II. IN THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH
Archbishops are as a rule only titular, without any suffragans, but with their own diocese, the same as most of the Catholic metropolitans in the East. But in the autocephalous, or independent, national churches of Austria, Hungary, Servia, Roumania, Bosnia, and Herzegovina the so-called archbishops or metropolitans exercise, in union with the autocephalous synod, the highest ecclesiastical authority over the Church of such country. Their office, therefore, resembles that of a patriarch.
III. THE ANGLICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH
The Anglican Church has two archbishops in England, one of Canterbury, the other of York, both of whom are invested with primatial dignity; and two archbishops in Ireland, one of Armagh, the other of Dublin. Their authority is similar to that of Catholic archbishops. In Scotland the Episcopalians have no archbishop; but one of the bishops is chosen by the rest to act as “Primus” without metropolitan jurisdiction (see BISHOP, DIOCESE, METROPOLITAN, HIERARCHY, PRIMATE).
———————————–
S.G. MESSMER Transcribed by Wm Stuart French, Jr. Dedicated to Michael Davies
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume ICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Archbishop
(), chief of the clergy of a whole province.
I. Epiphanius (Haer. 68) speaks of Alexander of Alexandria, who lived about 320, as archbishop of that see, and this is the first mention of that title on record; nor is at all clear whether Epiphanius in that passage is not rather speaking after the custom of his own time, than intending to assert that Alexander bore the title of archbishop; for the titles of pope and bishop are given to this Alexander in a letter of Arius addressed to him. Be this as it may, Alexandria was the first see which assumed the title, which, however, was at first thought to savor too much of pride; for in the twenty-sixth canon of the Council of Carthage, A.D. 397, at which Augustine was present, it was ordered to be laid aside, and the ancient style of bishop of the first see used instead. This impression appears not to have worn out until the Council of Ephesus, where the title of archbishop was attributed to the bishops of the first three sees of the world, viz. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, as well as to John of Antioch, and Memnon of Ephesus. In process of time, when the bishops of the great sees assumed the higher title of patriarch, that of archbishop became gradually to be applied to those metropolitans who had other metropolitans under them, i.e. to those whom the Greeks called exarchs, and the Latins, in the middle and subsequent ages, primates. The archbishop differed from the metropolitan in the Eastern Church in that the former had only some privileges of honor and respect above the other bishops, whereas the metropolitans had jurisdiction over the bishops of their provinces (Landon, Eccl. Dict. s.v.).
II. In the Roman Church archbishops have a twofold character and authority:
(1) Episcopal charge of their own dioceses;
(2) Superintendence, to a certain extent, of all the bishops (not exempt) in their province. Their jurisdiction includes (a) the power to call synods (Conc. Trident. sess. 24, c. 2):
(b) the right of visitation, on call of a provincial synod (Conc Trid. sess. 24, c. 3). They rank in the hierarchy next to cardinals and patriarchs. They must receive the pallium (q.v.) from the pope before exercising their functions. A full account may be found in Thomassin, vet. ac. nov. Eccl. disciplina, etc., pt. 1, lib. 1, caps. 68, 69.
The number of archbishops in authority was, in 1865 as follows: In Europe (Roman Catholic), 112: viz Italy, 47; Austria, 16; France, 17; Spain, 9; Turkey, 4; Ireland, 4; Portugal, 2; Prussia, Bavaria, Russia (counting in Polocz, which exists only by name), Greece (inclusive of the Ionian Islands), 2 each; Belgium, Holland, England, Baden, Poland, Malta, 1 each. In Asia, 12: viz. Turkey, 10; Spanish possessions, 1; Portuguese possessions, 1. In Africa, 1: viz. Alger. In America, 22: viz. United States, 7; British possessions, 3; Mexico, Spanish possessions, Central America, United States of Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Chili, Dominican Republic, and Hayti, each 1. In Australia, 1. Fourteen (in Turkey, Russia, and Austria) belong to the United Greek, Armenian, Syrian, Maronite, Chaldean (q.v.) rites. There are also some archbishops in partibus infidelium, who are, of course, not included in the above list. Also the patriarchs (q.v.), though they exercise archiepiscopal rights, have been excluded from this list. The Jansenists (q.v.) in Holland have still one archbishop at Utrecht. We give a list of archbishoprics in our articles on the various countries.
In the United States there were, in 1865, seven provinces of the Roman Catholic Church, viz. Baltimore, Abp. Spaulding; New Orleans, Abp. Odin (died 1860); New York, Abp. McCloskey; Cincinnati, Abp. Purcell; St. Louis, Abp. Kenrick; Oregon, Abp. Blanchet; San Francisco, Abp. Alemany. In the year 1828 Pope Leo XII appointed, after much delay, an archbishop in Colombia, whom Bolivar had proposed.
III. In all the Eastern Churches the difference between archbishops and bishops is less marked than in the Roman Catholic Church. The Greek Church of Turkey has four patriarchs, independent archbishops of Cyprus, Mount Sinai, and Montenegro, and several archbishops or metropolitans in the patriarchate of Constantinople. In Russia, in 1865, 25 prelates had the title archbishop; in Greece, 12; in Austria, 2. With regard to the other Eastern Churches, compare the articles Armenians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Copts, Abyssinian Church.
IV. In Protestant countries, archbishops are found in Finland (Russia), 1; Sweden, 1; England, 2; and Ireland, 2. Bede assigns the first establishment of archbishoprics in England to the time of Lucius, said to be the first Christian king of England, who, after the conversion of his subjects, erected three archbishoprics, viz. London, York, and Llandaff (Caerleon). The dignity of archbishop continued in the see of London one hundred and eighty years, and was then, in the time of the Saxons, transferred to Canterbury. Augustin, the monk who was sent by Pope Gregory to convert the English nation, in the reign of Ethelbert, king of Kent, was the first bishop of Canterbury; but Theodore, the sixth in succession after him, was the first archbishop of that see. The archbishop of Canterbury had anciently the primacy, not only over England, but Ireland also, and all the bishops of the latter were consecrated by him. He was styled by Pope Urban II Alterius Orbis Papa; he had a perpetual legatine power annexed to his archbishopric: he had some marks of royalty, such as the power of coining money, etc. Since the Reformation he is styled Primate and Metropolitan of all England. Archbishop Cranmer was the first who Lore this title. As to precedency, there have been many contests about it, as also about the oath of canonical obedience between the two archiepiscopal sees. Some antiquarians will have it that the archbishop of York was originally: primate of the British Church; for London never was a Roman colony, or the seat of the Roman emperors, as York was, where both Severus and Constantius Chlorus lived and died, and where Constantine the Great was born; and from hence they infer that where the emperors resided was the most likely place to have pre-eminence above the rest. However it be, in the reign of Henry I, William, Corbel, archbishop of Canterbury, obtained from the pope the character of legate, by which he secured to himself a superiority over the see of York, which he visited jure legationis. But after his death the contest still continued; for we find that in the reign of Henry II, a synod being called at Westminster by the pope’s legate, the archbishop of Canterbury coming first, seated himself at the right hand of the legate.; but York, coming afterward, refused to take the seat on the left hand, and demanded Canterbury’s place, which the latter refusing, York sat down in his lap. This occasioned the synod to break up in disorder, and both parties appealing to the pope, the contest was decided in favor of the see of Canterbury, which enjoys the precedency to this day. The privileges of the archbishop of Canterbury are, among others, to crown the kings of England; to have prelates for his officers-as the bishop of London his provincial dean; the bishop of Winchester his chancellor; the bishop of Lincoln his vice-chancellor; the bishop of Salisbury his precentor; the bishop of Worcester his chaplain; and the bishop of Rochester his crosier- bearer, which last office, since the times of popery, has ceased. He is also the first peer of England next to the royal family. The archbishop of Canterbury has the supreme government of ecclesiastical matters next under the king. Upon the death of any suffragan bishop, the custody of his see devolves upon the archbishop. He has the power of censuring any bishop in his province; he has an ancient right to preside in all provincial councils of his suffragans, which formerly were held once a year, but have been discontinued a long time; so that his power of examining things throughout his province is devolved to the courts, of which he holds several as the Court of Arches, Prerogative Court, Court of Peculiars, etc., and he has the probate of wills. As to the archbishop of York, he is now styled Primate and Metropolitan of England, and takes place of all peers except the archbishop of Canterbury and the lord chancellor. The province of the archbishop of York consists of the six northern counties, with Cheshire and Nottinghamshire. The rest of England and Wales form the province of the archbishop of Canterbury. The dioceses of the two archbishops that is to say, the districts in which they exercise ordinary episcopal functions were remodelled by 6 and 7 William IV, c. 77. The diocese of Canterbury comprises Kent, except the city and deanery of Rochester, and some parishes transferred by this act; a number of parishes in Sussex called peculiars; with small districts in other dioceses, particularly London. The diocese of the archbishop of York embraces the county of York, except that portion of it now included in the dioceses of Ripon and Manchester, the whole county of Nottingham, and some other detached districts. Scotland, while episcopacy prevailed in that country, had two archbishops of St. Andrew’s and Glasgow the former of whom was Primate of all Scotland. Wales likewise anciently boasted of an archbishop, whose see (as has been observed) was established at Caerleon, and was afterward translated to St. David’s. But the plague raging very much in that county, the archiepiscopal see was again removed to Doll, in Bretagne, where this dignity ended; notwithstanding which, in after ages, the Britons, or Welsh, commenced an action on that account against the archbishop of Canterbury, but were cast. In Ireland there are two Protestant and four Roman Catholic archbishops. Of the former, the archbishop of Armagh is Primate of all Ireland, the archbishop of Dublin being Primate of Ireland. They sit alternately in the House of Lords; the three bishops who, along with them, represent the Church of Ireland, being also chosen by rotation from the whole body. Previous to the creation of an archbishopric in Ireland, the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury extended to that island. The amount of control which belongs to an archbishop over the bishops of his province is not very accurately defined; but if any bishop introduces irregularities into his diocese, or is guilty of immorality, the archbishop may call him to account, and even deprive him. In 1822, the archbishop of Armagh, who is primate of all Ireland, deposed the bishop of Clogher on the latter ground. To the archbishop of Canterbury belongs the honor of placing the crown on the sovereign’s head at his coronation; and the archbishop of York claims the like privilege in the case of the queen-consort, whose perpetual chaplain he is.
The Episcopal Church of Scotland has at present no archbishop, but the presiding bishop has the title of primus, or metropolitan. In the English colonies, the bishops of Calcutta, Sydney, New Zealand, Montreal, Capetown, each of whom presides over an ecclesiastical province (a number of dioceses), have the title METROPOLITAN. SEE METROPOLITAN.
The election of an archbishop does not differ from that of a bishop, SEE BISHOP; but when he is invested with his office he is said to be enthroned, whereas a bishop is consecrated. He also writes himself by divine providence, a bishop being by divine permission; and has the title of Grace and Most Reverend Father in God, while a bishop is styled Lord and Right Reverend Father in God. The archbishop is entitled to present to all ecclesiastical livings in the disposal of diocesan bishops if not filled up within six months; and every bishop, whether created or translated, is bound to make a legal conveyance to the archbishop of the next avoidance of one such dignity or benefice belonging to his see as the archbishop shall choose. This is called the archbishop’s option. SEE BISHOP; SEE EPISCOPACY. See Bingham, Orig. Eccles. bk. 2, ch. 17; Coleman, Ancient Christianity, ch. 8, 4.
V. In the Protestant churches of Germany the title archbishop is not customary, yet it was conferred, on April 19,1829, by order of the king of Prussia, on the superintendent general of the province of Prussia, Borowski, with the declaration, Why I should not the highest dignitaries of our evangelical church have the same claim to this dignity as the clergymen of several other evangelical countries, in which it has been preserved without interruption? See Nicolovius, Die bischoft. Wurde in Preussen’s evangel. Kirche (Kinigsberg, 1834).
On the Roman Catholic archbishops, see Helfert, Von den Rechten und Pflichten der Bischofe (Prague, 1832); and Mast, Dogmat. histor. Abhandlung uber die rechtliche Stellung der Erzbischofe (Freiburg, 1847). A list of all archbishoprics, with their suffragans, throughout the world, will be given in an APPENDIX. Hook, Church Dict. s.v.; Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, s.v.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Archbishop
a bishop of the first class, who superintends the conduct of other bishops. Archbishops were not known in the east till about the year 320; and though there were some soon after this, who had the title, yet it was only a personal honour, by which the bishops of considerable cities were distinguished. It was not till of late that archbishops because metropolitans, and had suffragans under them. Athanasius appears to have been the first who used the title archbishop, which he gave occasionally to his predecessor. Gregory Nazianzen, in like manner, gave it to Athanasius; not that either of them was entitled to any jurisdiction, or even any precedency, in virtue of this title. Among the Latins, Isidore Hispalensis is the first who speaks of archbishops.